Retaking the discussion about cause in Trinity, Symeon affirms the fact, that the idea of cause should not be interpreted as aprimacy of the Father towards the Son or the Ghost.

Although the Father is ai;tion, the cause of the Son, He is not prw/ton, the first. Neither the Son is deu,teron, the second, although He is from the Father. Nor the Ghost is a third, a tri,ton, although He proceeds from the Father[1].

Trinity is one from the beginning (e;n evx avrchj) and Her existence excludes anyanteriority[2].

Symeon believes that is not a boldness to analyze those about God, about the trinitarian God into Whom we have been baptized. We must know that God is Trinity[3], but we do not examine „how or when or wherewith or how is Trinity the creator of all”[4].

By this Symeon discourages the proud, haughty research of the knowledge of God, which proposes to inventory problems that not related by the Sacred Tradition, but a gnostified speculation of the theological research.

In the second discourse, Symeon draws attention that the triadology does not occupy with the researchof God’sbeing[5].

The discussion about fu,sij (nature) and ouvsi,a (being) does not have the revelational covering. But the discussion about the persons of Trinity can emphasize to us the truth, that the Father „gives birth in the timeless and eternal face to the Son the one-being, Which [Son] in noway doesn’t leave Him, and together with Which, together-proceeds and the divine Ghost from the Father the one-being and Which [Ghost] is the one-being with the Son”[6].

His assertion excludes any temporalisation of the persons of the Trinity, any interval between the birth of the Son from the Father and the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and shows the eternal communion between the trinitarian persons, Which have in common, in perichoretic mode, the same being of the Godhead.

Debating the parallelism between the image of God in man and the Trinity, Saint Symeon affirms that the Father can not be without the Son and the Ghost[7].

For we confess in orthodox mode about Trinity, says Symeon, we must say that the Father gives birth to the Son but He didnot pre-existed the Son, that the Son is begotten of the Father but without to be posterior to the Father and that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, but is co-eternal and the one–being with the Son and with the Father[8].

The symeonian triadology focuses in the second theological discourse, primarily, on the attestation of the Trinity’s unity.

Who denies a person from Trinity or talks about her in unrevelational mode abolishes the Trinity[9]. The God Father was made known to us by the Son and His Ghost and those of the Holy Ghost we have learned from the Father and the Son, co-eternal with Him[10].

All three persons of Deity have one and the same will[11], stresses Symeon. This thing is capital in our relation with Trinity, because we receive the grace of the Trinity and see His glory and not a substitute of His presence.

Our relation with God is an impartation of His glory but the reality of it is not understood for all creation[12]. The God’s being is for us avpro,siton and avkatano,hton, unapproachable and not understood[13]. Therefore the Holy Scripture says about God only that He exists but not and how is He[14].

At the end of the second discourse, Symeon says that, although we can not see the being of God, if we see „the unapproachable glory of His divine light and endless”, we have seen God[15]. The sight of the Trinity’s glory makes us to have God in us, Who speaks and introduces us into His mysteries those hidden[16].

The symeonian triadology has two major characteristics: is apologetic, then when responding of public and personal contestations and doxology, personalistic, when not made for the large public, but is integrated into the personal prayers.

But the combative dimension of symeonian triadology has nothing to do with the malicious and the impersonalism of a modern dogmatic treatise, but combines the living piety, total and, especially, attentive, with the fidelity towards the faith of the Church’s Saints, towards Tradition.

In this section, we begin the presentation of teaching about the Most Holy Trinity at Saint Symeon, beginning with its publicdimension, combative, for to conclude with the personalistic, interior, as a manifestation of his love towards God.

2. 2. 1. The Apologetic Dimension

The three TheologicalDiscourses are the apologetic emblem of the symeonian theology. The theological concision unites here with the simple majesty, delicate of the mode to do the spiritual theology.

Therefore, Symeon does not begin the first of his theological discourse with a revolutionary impulse to a theology made ​​by any tyro, but with the indication of the fact that the understanding of God has nothing to do with a soul auvqadou/j (stubborn) and full of tolmhra/n (audacity)[1].

He is sharp, trenchant, and justly, to those who innovate without a traditional base or that repertoires of traditional writings for showing off in front of ignorants[2].

Therefore, we believe that a knowledge of the issues of the symeonian triadology means a preciseunderstanding of the theology of glory.

Only if we believe in the trinitarian God about that speaks to us Scripture and the Fathers of the Church we can experience the sight of God. The triadological stake is capital for understanding the spiritual life, the sight of God and the personal salvation.

The trinitarian problem of the first discourse is to demonstrate the fact that the Father is not greater than the Son[3].

Because only mustagwgou,menoi (initiates into those hidden, sacred) know the ones that are said by the Ghost[4], Symeon affirms the fact that the trinitarian persons being eternal united (avei. h`nwme,na) and eternal alike (avei. w`sau,twj) it can not exist between them the anteriority and posteriority relations[5], and, in definitive, nor any degree of excellence of any person before another.

If they renounce at the idea of the degree of excellence of the Father towards the Son, says Symeon, he can talk about the Father as the cause (ai;tion) of the Trinity[6].

The preexistence (prou?pa,rxan) of the Father towards the Son is radically contested by Symeon[7].

The Son is co-eternal (sunai?di,on) and together–without–beginning (sunana,rcon) with the Father[8]. The Father is into the Son and the Son is into the Father in entirely, because Both are the one–honor (o`moti,mon) and theone-being (o`moousi,on)[9].

But, stresses our Father, Symeon, the Father is the cause of Son in regarding His incarnation, and the idea of the gradual, consecutive apparition of the trinitarian persons has no relation with the Most Holy Trinity[10].

The idea of cause (ai;tion) in Trinity is not rejected definitively by Symeon, but only purged of the idea of the primacy and of the consecution.

The ineffable and divine birth of the Logos from the Father may be orthodox formulated in sentence: the cause of the Son is the Father[11].

But the fact that the Father is cause of the Son does not mean that the Father is prw/ton (first)[12].

If we introduce the primacy of the Father in the Trinity and the consecution of the persons of the Trinity, we are only falling into polytheism, because we divide the Deity into three gods[13].

If the Father is prw/ton, continues Saint Symeon, then we have as deu,teron the Son and as tri,ton the Holy Ghost[14]. The affirmation which he examines (that „the Father is greater than the Son”) it discloses in I, 101 that a dogmatization covered of thetritheism (triqei/van)[15].

Commenting on John. 1, 1, Symeon draws our attention that the Logos was not known as theSon than in the frame of the incarnation and that God was not known as Father until He has revealed to us as His incarnate Son[16].

Triadology is a post-incarnational revelation made ​​in the space of the dispensation of salvation[17]. That’s all what we know about Trinity we have learned from the Son, Who becames man.

[1] SC 122, The Theogical Discourses, I, 3-4, p. 96 / Ică jr. 1, p. 75. The admonestations of Saint Symeon are not gratuitous, but are part of the arsenal of discreditation of those who are improper for theology. They specificate the deficiencies of the false theologians and they are never personal attacks.